1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the field of automated electronic table games, and particularly to automated games having images of a dealer of a card game displayed to players.
2. Background of the Art
In the gaming industry, significant gambling occurs at live table games that use playing cards and a live dealer. Exemplary live table games include blackjack, poker, poker variants such as LET IT RIDE® stud poker, baccarat, casino war and other games. There are a number of proprietary or specialty live table card games which have developed, such as pai gow poker, LET-IT-RIDE® stud poker, THREE CARD POKER® game, FOUR CARD POKER™ game, Caribbean stud poker and others. These and many other games all involve play using playing cards. The cards are dealt by a live dealer to the players, to a flop and/or to the dealer. The use of playing cards provided by a live dealer has a number of associated limitations and disadvantages that have long plagued the casino industry. Some of these are of general concern to all or most playing card games. Others are problems associated with the use of playing cards in particular games. Some of the principal concerns and problems are discussed below.
The use of playing cards at live table games typically involves several operational requirements that are time-consuming. These operations are conveniently described as collecting, shuffling, dealing and reading of the cards. In many card games there is also a step of cutting the deck after it has been shuffled. In the collecting operation, a live dealer typically collects the cards just played at the end of a hand of play. This is done in preparation for playing the next hand of cards. The cards must often be collected in the specific order in which they had appeared in the play of the game and must also be collected in a specific orientation, such as all cards being in a facedown or face-up condition. The cards also are typically straightened into a stack with the long sides and short sides aligned. These manipulations take time and are not typically appreciated by either the dealer or players as enhancing the play and entertainment value of the game. The use of physical cards also adds a regular cost to play of the game in the wear on decks of cards that must be replaced every few hours. In many games the cards collected at the end of the hand are deposited in a discard rack that collects the played cards until the time a new stack is obtained or the stack is shuffled. In some games the cards are immediately shuffled into the stack either manually or using a card shuffling machine. More typically, the cards are collected and then shuffling is performed later by the dealer or a shuffling device controlled by the dealer.
When shuffling is needed, it involves a break in the action of the table game and consumes a significant amount of time. Shuffling is also the most time consuming operation in preparing for the next hand. Thus, shuffling is of substantial financial significance to the casino industry because it requires significant time and reduces the number of hands that can be played per hour or other period of time. The earnings of casinos are primarily dependent upon the total number of hands played. This is true because the casino on average wins a certain percent of the amounts wagered, and many or most casinos are open on a 24-hour basis. Thus, earnings are limited by the number of hands that can be played per hour. In light of this there has been a significant and keen interest by casino owners to develop practices that allow more games to be played in a given amount of time. Accomplishing this without detracting from the players' enjoyment and desire to play the game is a challenging and longstanding issue with casino owners and consultants in the gaming industry. The use of high quality shuffling machines, such as those produced by Shuffle Master, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nev.) as shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,655,684; 6,651,982; 6,588,751; 6,658,750; 6,568,678; 6,325,373; 6,254,096; 6,149,154; 6,139,014; 6,068,258; and 5,695,189 that have significantly reduced the problem in down time, but there is still the need for a human operator and a human dealer in the use of these shuffling devices for casino table games.
The amount of time consumed by collecting, shuffling and dealing is also of significance in private card games because it also delays action and requires some special effort to perform. In private games there is also some added complexity due to card players remembering or figuring out which player had previously dealt and who should now shuffle and re-deal the cards as needed.
In addition to the time delay and added activity needed to collect, shuffle and deal cards, there is typically some time devoted to cutting the deck of cards which have been shuffled and which are soon to be dealt. This traditional maneuver helps to reduce the risk that the dealer who has shuffled the cards may have done so in a way that stacks the deck in an ordered fashion that may favor the dealer or someone else playing the game. Although cutting the deck does not require a large amount of time, it does take some time. The amount of time spent on cutting also somewhat reduces the frequency at which hands of the card game can be played and introduces another physical step in which human error or design can be introduced, such as dropping and exposing the cards or cutting the deck in a specific position to control the outcome in a fixed deck.
In the gaming industry there is also a very significant amount of time and effort devoted to security issues that relate to play of the casino games. Part of the security concerns stem from frequent attempts to cheat during play of the games. Attempts to cheat are made by players, dealers, or more significantly by dealers and players in collusion. This cheating seeks to affect the outcome of the game in a way that favors the dealer or players who are working together. The amount of cheating in card games is significant to the casino industry and constitutes a major security problem that has large associated losses. The costs of efforts to deter or prevent cheating are very large and made on a daily basis. Many of the attempts to cheat in the play of live table card games involve some aspect of dealer or player manipulation of cards during collection, shuffling, cutting or dealing of cards. Thus, there is a need for methods and apparatus that can be used in the play of live table card games that reduce the ability of the dealer and/or players to cheat by manipulation of playing cards. Of greatest concern are schemes whereby the deck is stacked and the stacked deck is used to the collusive player's advantage. Stacked decks represent huge potential losses since the player is aware of the cards which will be played before play occurs and can optimize winnings by increasing bets for winning hands and decreasing bets for losing hands. It is also desirable to provide decks or groups of cards where card counters are disadvantaged because of the reduction in their ability to track distributions of cards in the group of cards being used for play. Continuous shufflers, in which cards are reintroduced into the group of cards being used, the introduction being random throughout the entire group, helps to eliminate that aspect of improper behavior at the gaming table.
Casinos have recognized that their efforts to reduce cheating would be improved if the casino had comprehensive information on the cards which have been played, the amounts bet, the players and dealers involved and other information about actions which have taken place at the card tables. This is of particular importance in assessing the use of stacked decks. It is also important where card tracking is occurring. Additional explanation about card tracking is discussed below. The information desired by the casinos includes knowing the sequence and exact cards being dealt. It would be even more advantageous to the casino if physical cards and live dealers could be eliminated, as this would remove almost all major existing methods of fraud from casino table card games.
Some attempts have been made to record card game action. The best current technology involves cameras that are mounted above the tables to record the action of the card games. This approach is disadvantaged by the fact that not all cards dealt are easily imaged from a camera position above the table because some or all of the cards are not dealt face-up, or are hidden by overlying cards. Although many blackjack games are sufficiently revealing to later determine the order of dealt cards, others are not. Other card games, such as poker, have hands that are not revealed. The covered cards of the players do not allow the order of dealt cards to be ascertained from an above-table camera or on table cameras, as exemplified by U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,313,871 to Schubert, 5,781,647 to Fishbine et al., and numerous patents assigned to MindPlay, LLC (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,663,490; 6,652,379; 6,638,161; 6,595,857; 6,579,181; 6,579,180; 6,533,662; 6,533,276; 6,530,837; 6,530,836; 6,527,271; 6,520,857; 6,517,436; 6,517,435; and 6,460,848.
Even where cameras are used, their use may not be effective. Such cameras may require time-consuming and tedious human analysis to go over the videotapes or other recordings of table action or require the use of software that is complex and imprecise. In some present systems, some human study may be needed just to ascertain the sequence of cards dealt or to determine the amount of betting or to confirm software determinations from camera read data. Such human analysis is costly and cannot economically be used to routinely monitor all action in a casino card room or table game pit.
For the above reasons, the video camera monitoring techniques have found very limited effectiveness as a routine approach for identifying cheating. There has also been relatively limited use as a serious analytical tool because of the difficulty of analysis. Such camera surveillance techniques are also of only limited effectiveness as a deterrent because many of the people involved with cheating have a working knowledge of their limitations and utilize approaches which are not easily detectable by such systems.
Another use of video camera monitoring and recording has been made in the context of analyzing card table action after someone has become a cheating or card counting suspect. The tape recordings serve as evidence to prove the cheating scheme. However, in the past, this has generally required other evidence to initially reveal the cheating so that careful analysis can be performed. More routine and general screening to detect cheating has remained a difficult and continuing problem for casinos. This is also a human intensive review, with both video monitoring security personnel and live personnel watching the players and apprehending players at the tables.
Another approach to reducing security problems utilizes card shoes having card detection capability. Card shoes hold a stack of cards containing typically from one to eight decks of cards. The cards are held in the card shoe in preparation for dealing and to secure the deck within a device that restricts access to the cards and helps prevent card manipulations. Card shoes can be fit with optical or magnetic sensors that detect the cards as they are being dealt. Some of the problems of security analysis using above-table cameras is reduced when the sequence of cards dealt can be directly determined at the card shoe using optical or magnetic sensors.
One advantage of such card shoes is that the card sequence information can be collected in a machine-readable format by sensing the specific nature (suit and count) of each card as they are dealt out of the card shoe. However, most such card shoes have special requirements for the cards being used. Such cards must carry magnetic coding or are specifically adapted for optical reading. This increases the cost of the cards and may not fully resolve the problems and difficulties in obtaining accurate information concerning sequence information. The automated data collecting card shoes also do not have an inherent means for collecting data on the assignment of the card to a particular player or the dealer. They further do not collect data on the amounts bet. These factors thus require some other manual or partially automated data collection system to be used, or require that time-consuming human analysis be performed using video tapes as explained above.
The use in blackjack of numerous card decks, such as six decks, has been one strategy directed at minimizing the risk of card tracking or counting, especially when the set of cards is cut relatively shallowly so that many cards are not allowed into play from the set. Such tracking should be contrasted with card counting strategies which are typically less accurate and do not pose as substantial a risk of loss to the casino. Use of numerous card decks in a stack along with proper cut card placement can also reduce the risk of effective card counting. However, it has been found that multiple decks are not sufficient to overcome the skilled gambler's ability to track cards and turn the advantage against the house.
Card tracking can be thought of as being of two types. Sequential card tracking involves determination of the specific ordering of the card deck or decks being dealt. This can be determined or closely estimated for runs of cards, sequences of cards forming a portion or portions of a stack. Sequential card tracking can be devastating to a casino since a player taking advantage of such information can bet large in a winning situation and change the odds in favor of the player and against the casino.
Slug tracking involves determining runs of the deck or stack that show a higher frequency of certain important cards. For example, in the play of blackjack there are a relatively large number of 10-count cards. These 10-count cards are significant in producing winning blackjack hands or 20-count hands that are also frequently winning hands. Gamblers who are proficient in tracking slugs containing large numbers of 10-count cards can gain an advantage over the house and win in blackjack.
There is also a long-standing problem in the play of blackjack which concerns the situation when the dealer receives a blackjack hand in the initial two cards dealt. If the dealer has a 10-count card or ace as the up card, then it is possible for the dealer to have a blackjack. If the dealer does have a blackjack, then there is no reason to play the hand out since the outcome of the hand is already determined without further dealing. If the hand is fully played out, and the dealer then reveals that the dealer has received a blackjack hand, then a significant amount of time has been wasted. It also causes players to often be upset when a hand is played out to no avail. In many casinos the waste of time associated with playing out hands with a winning dealer blackjack has lead to various approaches that attempt to end the hand after the initial deal. Some of these allow the dealer to look at the down card to make a determination whether a blackjack hand has been dealt to the dealer. This looking is commonly called “peeking” and is an operation that has been the source of numerous cheating schemes involving dealers and players who work in collusion. In such cheating associated with peeking at the down card, the dealer cheats in collaboration with an accomplice-player. This cheating is frequently accomplished when the dealer signals the accomplice using eye movements, hand movements or other signals. If a dealer does not peek, then he does not know the value of his hand until after the players have completed their play. If the dealer does peek, then he can use such eye movements, hand movements or other techniques to convey instructions to his accomplice-player. These signals tell the accomplice what hand the dealer has been dealt. With this knowledge of the dealer's hand, the accomplice has improved odds of winning and this can be sufficient to turn the long-term odds in favor of the accomplice-player and against the casino. Many casinos do not allow the dealer to look at or inspect the down card until all insurance wagers have been made or declined.
There have also been a substantial number of apparatuses devised to facilitate the peeking procedure or render it less subject to abuse. Such peeking devices are intended to allow determination of whether the dealer has received a blackjack hand; however, this is done without revealing to the dealer what the down card is unless it makes a blackjack. Some of these devices require a special table with a peeking device installed in the table. Others allow the down card to be reviewed using a tabletop device in which the card is inserted. These systems and others involve the use of special playing cards. These devices and methods generally add greater costs and slow the play of the game. The slowed play often occurs to such a degree that it offsets the original purpose of saving time associated with playing out possible dealer blackjack hands. The prior attempts have often ended up unacceptable and are removed.
Another notable problem suffered by live table games is the intimidation which many novice or less experienced players feel when playing such games. Surveys have indicated that many new or less experienced people who come to a casino are inclined to play slot machines and video card games. These people feel intimidation at a live table game because such games require quick thinking and decision making while other people are watching and waiting. This intimidation factor reduces participation in table games.
A further issue that has developed in the casino business is the public's increasing interest in participating in games that have a very large potential payoff. This may be in part a result of the large amount of publicity surrounding the state operated lotteries. News of huge payoffs is read with keen interest and creates expectations that gaming establishments should provide games with large jackpots. One approach has been the networked or progressive slot machines that use a centralized pool of funds contributed by numerous players. These slot machine systems are relatively more costly to purchase and operate. For many gamblers, this approach is not particularly attractive. This lack of attractiveness may be due to the impersonal and solitary nature of playing slot machines. It may alternatively be for other reasons. Whatever the reason, the public is clearly interested in participating in games that can offer potential jackpots that are very large. Table card games have not been able to satisfactorily address this interest. The continued diminishment in the percent of people who play live table games indicates the need for more attractive games and game systems that address to public's interests.
Further problems associated with live table card games are the costs associated with purchasing, handling and disposal of paper and plastic playing cards. Casinos pay relatively favorable prices for card decks, but the decks roughly cost about $1 per deck at this time. Each casino uses decks for a very limited period of time, typically only one shift, and almost always less than one day. After this relatively brief life in the limelight, the decks are disposed of in a suitable manner. In some cases they can be sold as souvenirs. This is done after the cards are specially marked or portions are punched out to show they have been decommissioned from a casino. This special marking allows the cards to be sold as souvenirs while reducing the risk that they will later be used at the card tables in a cheating scheme which involves slipping a winning card into play at an appropriate point. In other cases the playing cards are simply destroyed or recycled to eliminate this last risk. In any case, the cost of playing cards for a casino is significant and can easily run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
In addition to the above problems, there are also significant costs associated with handling and storing the new and worn playing cards. Sizable rooms located in the casino complexes are needed just to store the cards as they are coming and going. Thus, the high costs of casino facilities further exacerbate the costs associated with paper and plastic playing cards.
The most significant cost in operation of gaming apparatus is personnel costs. A number of attempts have been made to reduce time requirements for not only the dealers, relief dealers, but also for the supervisors, managers, security and the other staff that are directly or indirectly involved in the operation or maintenance of the games.
A number of attempts have been made to design and provide fully automated gaming machines that duplicate play of casino table card games. These attempts have ranged from and included the highly successful video poker slot games to the mildly successful slot-type blackjack game (for single players). In those systems, the individual player sits at an individual machine, inserts credits/currency/coins, and plays a one-on-one game that is controlled by a processor in the machine or to which the machine is distally connected (networked). These machines are common in casinos, but do not duplicate the ambience of the casino table game with multiple players present.
Another type of attempt for simulating casino table card games is the use of a bank of individual player positions associated with a single dealer position in an attempt to simulate the physical ambiance of a live casino table card game. Such systems are shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,397,509 to Miller et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,614,342 to Takashima, U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,615 to Cheng, U.S. Pat. No. 5,470,080 to Nakua et al., and published U.S. patent applications 2002/0169013 (Serizawa), 2003/0199316 (Miyamoto), and the like. These systems have a video display of a dealer and have individual monitors for display of the players' hands and the dealer hands. The architecture of these systems has generally been designed on a unique basis for each game, and there tends to be a main computer/processor that drives all elements of the game, or two computers/processors that distribute the video control of the dealer image and the remainder of the game elements between the two distinct computer/processors. This tends to maximize the cost of the system and tends to provide a slow system with high processing power demands to keep the operation working at speeds needed to maximize use and profit from the machines.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,651,985 and 6,270,404, both to Sines et al., are titled “Automated System for Playing Live Casino Table Games Having Tabletop Changeable Playing Card Displays and Play Monitoring Security Features.” U.S. Pat. No. 6,165,069 to Sines et al., is similarly titled “Automated System for Playing Live Casino Table Games Having Tabletop Changeable Playing Card Displays and Monitoring Security Features.”
The latter two patents, U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,270,404 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,165,069, are related as continuations and, therefore, have identical disclosures. U.S. Pat. No. 6,651,985 claims continuation-in-part status from the earliest application, which is U.S. Pat. No. 6,165,069.
Sines, U.S. Pat. No. 6,651,985, describes the use of a live dealer, even though virtual cards are used. There is no virtual dealer display and no software or architecture controls needed for a virtual dealer display. There are distinct display components for the players' hands and dealer's hand. Looking at FIGS. 23, 24 and 25 (which are identical to the same figures in U.S. Pat. No. 6,651,895, discussed above), it appears that at least for betting functions, the system operates with parallel communication to the player input stations. (See wire connections shown in FIGS. 24 and 25 to the Player Bet Interfaces 196, 198, 201 and 203.) These Bet Interface Circuits (an alternative description in the text, at column 14, lines 29-56 and column 15, lines 5-12) do not indicate that these are anything more than circuits, and no processing intelligence is specifically disclosed. This appears to be merely an interface with player controls without any processing function disclosed. The Sines' system in these patents also requires bet sensors on the table.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,607,443 (Miyamoto et al., and assigned to Kabushiki Kaisha SEGA Enterprises) and Published U.S. application 2003/0199316 A1 (also assigned to KKSE) and particularly FIGS. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, disclose a virtual blackjack table system. The main objective of this patent is to have optical data that enables the Sega system to read hand signals of players, such as calls for “hits” and “stand” signals. The hardware architecture in FIG. 15, as described in the specification at column 11, lines 29-54 show that there are distinct CPUs for the (audio and video, 280, 281, 282, 283) that is driven by the sub-CPU, which is, in turn, connected to the main CPU 201, with an additional sub-CPU 204 directing the motion sensor system 13, 14, 15, 16, and 32 . There are distinct processing blocks for the sound (22), the video (21), the main CPU 201, and the subsystems (13), as well as the components already noted for the motion sensors/facial recognition sensors system.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,221,083 (Dote, SEGA Enterprises, Ltd.) describes a blackjack automated game system that has a reflected video image of a dealer and also has individual satellite player positions, with individual CRT monitors for each player. There is no disclosure of the type of information processing hardware in the system.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,934,998 (Forte and Sines, unassigned) and 5,586,766 (Forte and Sines, assigned to Casinovations, Inc.) describe the use of physical cards and a physical dealer, with no dealer display, on a blackjack table that has a CPU driven system. FIGS. 6-10 show circuit construction and hardware considerations in the design of the system, including communication architecture. This system provides a count display (e.g., LED display) at each player position to show the player count and dealer count (as appropriate) that is determined from reading of the physical cards. Physical playing chips are also used; with no credit wagering capability is shown.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,159,549 describes a system that provides a multiple player game data processing unit with wager accounting. There are distinct player stations with player input on wagering. There may be a limited amount of intelligence at player stations (see column 4, line 1 through column 7, line 55), but there are multiple lines to each player station.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,614,342 (Takashima) teaches an electronic game machine with distinct display units (CRT screens) at the player positions and the dealer position. The dealer screen (10) does not show an image of a dealer, but shows the dealer's card(s) and game information. There are typical player input controls (16) at each player position. The system provided is more like a bank of slot systems than a card table. In addition to a dealer data processor (6), each player position includes a player data processor CPU (30) with player memory (32). The central dealer computer apparently polls the individual player data processors to obtain the status of the events at each position (column 4, lines 1-60; and column 3, lines 8-17).
U.S. Pat. No. 5,586,936 (Bennett et al., assigned to Mikohn Gaming) teaches a ticketless control system for monitoring player activity at a table game, such as blackjack. Physical cards and physical chips are shown. Player identity cards identify each player entering play at a table, and a separate ticket printer issues a results ticket (500) at the end of play or reads the ticket at the beginning of play. There is no distinct intelligence apparent at each player position, and there is a central CPU that controls the system (e.g., FIG. 8). Physical chips and a real dealer are apparently used. A phone line (630) is connected from each player position to the CPU (820) through a communications port (814).
U.S. Pat. No. 4,995,615 to Cheng describes a method and apparatus for performing fair card play. There are individual player positions with individual screens (12) provided for each player. There are three vertical, card-display screens (11, 12, 13) shown for “receiving instructions from the computer to display sequentially the cards being distributed throughout the processing of the play . . . ” (Column 4, lines 4-13). There is no visual display of a dealer, there are individual player image panels, and no details of the architecture are shown or described.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,879,235; 5,976,019; and 6,394,898, assigned to SEGA Enterprises, Ltd. relate to non-card game systems, such as horse race simulators or ball game simulators (e.g., roulette). There is no dealer or croupier simulation. The horse race simulator is an automated miniature track with physically moving game elements. The point of interest is in evaluating the architecture to see how the intelligence is distributed between the player stations and the wagering screen. The system again shows individual monitors at each player position (80, 81) and no dealer display. The schematics of the electrical architecture in FIG. 11 shows a main board that also includes a Picture Control Section (95), Sound Control Section (96), and a communication control section (107). There is a distinct picture output board (108).
U.S. Pat. No. 6,607,443 (Miyamoto et al., Kabushiki Kaisha Sega Enterprises) shows an automated gaming table device in which there is an upright screen that displays a dealer's image. The particular purpose described in this patent is for recognition of sound and hand movement by players, but there is some description of the dealer screen display. For example, Column 7, line 45 through column 9, line 8 describes the images of the dealer provided on the main central screen 7 during game play. There is disclosure only to the effect that a dealer's image and particular expressions and body position are provided (along with sound) of the dealer. There are no details at all with respect to the background, the combination of images or the like.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,221,083 (Dote, Sega Enterprises, Ltd.) shows an automated gaming machine with a vertical image of a dealer presented to players sitting at a kiosk-type counsel. The screen or upright portion 2 has an image of a dealer 4 on a background or georama 13 that is formed on the inner surface of the upright portion 2. There are physical elements (e.g., pillars 14) that may be located in recesses in the upright portion 2 in front of the image to emphasize three-dimensionality. The table 5 is disposed in front of the pillars 14 and the image of the dealer 4 behind the pillars 14. The georama 13 is a physical image or construction, and the image of the dealer is originated in a CRT (e.g., 17) lying with the screen horizontal, and the image from the CRT 17 is reflected from a 45 degree mirror 20 for display to the players. This gives the illusion of the dealer being between the table and the georama background. The georama is a physical element, and has no video background at all. The dealer image is a reflected image, not a direct image. The reference appears to describe a distinct dealer image set against a backdrop of a scene.
It must be remembered that the technology of combining video images is standard commercial technology and is relatively old technology from the 1970's. Although many different backing colors may usefully be employed under special conditions, the most commonly selected backing color is substantially pure blue. Therefore, for clarity of description a blue backing will generally be assumed in the present discussion, and the process will ordinarily be referred to by the customary term, “blue screen process.” However, any such simplifying assumptions and terminology, are not intended to imply that other colors may not be used, with corresponding modification of the procedure. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,595,987, entitled “Electronic Composite Photography” describes apparatus and operations that can be used in creating such combined video images.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,007,487 (Vlahos, Motion Picture Academy of America) describes an improved electronic compositing procedure and apparatus. The process is typically used in the blue screen process and it is suitable for processing motion pictures of professional quality and the like. The invention provides compensation for color impurity in the backing illumination over a continuous range of effective transparencies of the foreground scene. Applicant's previous method for limiting the blue video component for the foreground scene to permit reproduction of light blue foreground objects is improved by a dual limitation criterion which simultaneously suppresses blue flare light from the backing reflected by foreground objects of selected colors, typically including grey scale and flesh tones. The control signal for attenuating the background scene is developed as a difference function predominantly only at areas occupied by opaque or partially transparent foreground objects, and is developed predominantly as a ratio function at unobstructed backing areas, thereby compensating undesired variations in brightness of the backing illumination, while permitting desired shadows on the backing to be reproduced in the composite picture. This is an overlay imaging process for video imaging.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,100,569 (Vlahos) discloses an electronic circuit for combining foreground and background pictures substantially linearly, and included special arrangements for accommodating objects including both blue and magenta colors in the foreground. The system as described merges of foreground and background pictures through a wide range of transparency of the foreground objects. In addition to the normal type of transparent foreground images, including smoke, glasses, and the like, the edges of moving objects are shown as being partially transparent to provide the illusion of rapid movement.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,344,085 (Vlahos, Vlahos-Gottschalk Research) describes a blue screen imaging compositing process using a clean-up circuit that eliminates problems caused by footprints, dust, and dirt on the “blue-screen” floor or other single color backing for the foreground scene, by modifying the basic linear background control signal by using a dual control signal. The normal linear control signal operates over the entire picture in the normal manner. The second control signal is generated by amplifying the linear control signal and inserting it back into the control circuits via a linear OR gate. Thus, any selected level of the background control signal Ec below 100 percent may be raised to 100 percent without influencing the lower levels of Ec. At a background control voltage level of perhaps 80 percent or 90 percent of the full background picture intensity, it may be abruptly increased to 100 percent. Above this selected level, any semi-transparency object, (for example the undesired footprint) is made fully transparent and is not reproduced. Further, while the foregoing signals are reduced to zero at this point, the background scene turn-on signal is raised to full intensity levels. This has the interesting collateral effect that thin wires that may be employed to support foreground objects may be rendered invisible, along with the undesired footprints and dust. There is no disclosure of its use for Video Gaming.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,661,425 describes a method for overlapping images in a display. An information input/output device has an intuitive operating feeling and improved information viewing and discriminating properties. The device comprises an superposing image extraction unit extracting a portion for super positional display from an image to output the extracted image portion as an superposing image, a mask pattern generating unit generating a mask pattern, effectors processing the superposing image, and the mask pattern based on the effect designation information, and a base image generating unit synthesizing the mask pattern image and the original image to generate a base image. The device also comprises a switcher, brightness/contrast controllers adjusting the brightness or contrast of the display image switching means, a control unit, super positional image display unit for superposed demonstration of display image planes of the displays and a display position adjustment mechanism. The display information of the image for display in superposition is demonstrated at a position that appears to be floated or recessed from the basic display plane.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,469,747 describes a video signal mixer with a parabolic signal mixing function, especially useful in scene-by-scene color correction systems and “blue screen” video masking applications. The mixer effects mixing two independent signal sources while smoothly controlling the rate of change during mixing. An input stage receives a first video signal and a second video signal. The mixing circuit mixes the first video signal with the second video signal based on a predetermined parabolic function. An aperture signal circuit in the mixer allows a degree of operator control over the parabolic function. An output stage provides a parabolized output signal. The output signal, which comprises the mixture of the first video signal and the second video signal, eliminates discontinuities in regions of the signal which would otherwise produce discontinuities in prior art types of video signal mixers. There is no specific description of the combining of live images on the screen with a preprogrammed image.
All of this background art is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety to provide technical knowledge on how images can be combined and integrated for display in the gaming device imaging system described in the practice of the present invention.